Should we film/record our 911 truth campaign events?

[Pikey]

I have started this thread in response to the following thread and this issue raised by "Respectfullymypointis":-

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=51302#51302&sid=09e2 727a5a07d274e51b44292173857e

The filming of the Unspinning the truth at Manchester proves it can be done by filming from the back.:-

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3482516133962858228&hl=en-GB

My view is that if we are going to be successful in our mission, filming/recording events, when we are willing and able and putting them on the net is an opportunity that we must not miss!

We must however respect individuals choices not to have their identity exposed, unless we have evidence that they are a shill/troll/agents of those responsible for 911 of course!

I'm sure there is a practical solution to this problem though!, eg. Guy Fawkes masks like in the film V for Vendatta!

As the movement grows though this will become less of a problem, as we become the majority in reaching critical mass and that mind conditioned uncomfortable "black sheep/herd mentality" feeling is expelled.

Give it no fear comrades.

Peace, truth and justice.

[scubadiver]

Annie did point out in a group email that William's only financial income is the DVD. Putting any complete talks for free on the internet won't do his cause any good.

Must be careful

[Pikey]

Good point scubadiver.

We're getting into deep waters on this subject and need to clarify and agree on these challenging issues

IMO the guest speakers should be asked for permission first. If they disagree then maybe the compromise could be that what is shown gives a taster of the event.......start/into then bits from the middle and the end.

[mark_e]

I have filmed both of our events in ipswich and have managed to film from the side at the front row both times. the only time i got that wrong was for the first half of ian crane's talk where i mostly got his back! i always ask the speakers if they're happy for it to be filmed and if they're ok with it going on google video. i'm very careful not to get attendees. check out the links on the ian crane on google video thread.

i want to do a 'truthers montage' with people being interviewed about their take on things. i would like to video WR, but won't as we've been asked not to.

i sometimes think the bits really worth recording are the questions and answers.

[Light Infantree]

I agree. Film everything. Post on Google/youtube, just ensure you get permission from the speaker and tell the audience first. Choice is very important. Respect of it paramount.

Its a geat idea Mark that we film interviews with truthers at events. personal experience of anything promote a balanced view. Some of the best things people get out of truth events are thier interactions with those present. People love to see just who is there and learn what they have to say. Filming events is a great way to get all parties to focus on their truth.

I have been intereviewed a couple of times now and it is a great way to find out how you really feel about 911truth. It put me on the spot and meant that after I asked my self if I had really said what I wanted to. I felt that i could have said so much more and been more focused - this is an intrinsic part of everyones 'process of truthing' From being put on the spot, and being brave enough to do so, we begin to find our own voices instead of simply listening to learned people speaking thiers.

Most people do not like being filmed because the light is shining on them and it scares them to the core. I can speak from experience, I tend to run from the camera. I would suggest we encourage people to do it as must a possible.

Didin't Mandella say something like 'it is our light that scares us and not our darkness'

[GodSaveTheTeam]

I have been discussing this at length with Respectfully... and although I believe people rightly have a choice whether or not to be filmed I believe they themselves are responsible for that choice.They are responsible for their own anonymity. We cannot afford to waste time verifying with each and every member of the audience if it's ok to film a question and answer session.What if someone says no? Then they must leave.

If they don't want to be filmed there is absolutely no way we as organisers of events can safeguard against it. What do we do? Search everyone on entry for surreptitious devices?Give everyone blindfolds for fear of recognition at some other time? Confiscate camera phones? Stop filming events? Stop holding events? Where does it end?

Filming from the back is no solution. Are we to tell them not to turn to the side or make a sound? People can be ID'd from profiles and voices.
We are already filmed everyday everywhere we go...what's the difference?

No close ups or focuses in on people is more of a solution. Warn people before they enter that they may be recorded on film. That way the event is only full of seriously committed people.

The more fearful ones can help in other ways. What's the point in people coming along and hiding or making their points quietly away from the cameras and then scurrying off home into obscurity again until we achieve our aims?

I agree ultimately that we should film from the sides and perhaps get the questioners to repeat their questions to the camera. But is this always going to be achievable? What if we didn't manage get some of them to do that?Would it make the inclusion of their question invalid?What if most of them had to leave before we could record them seperately?

There are so many complications here that I really do believe that the audience themselves are responsible for their own anonymity.

This movement needs courage. The total surveillance control system that awaits us is a far more fearful prospect than getting spotted on you tube by a very small amount of people. 260 have viewed the Leeds event I looked at on Google!!

People should be reminded what's at stake here!

[Snowygrouch]

All,
Yes WRodriguez cannot be filmed due to his income; however I'm encouraging ANYONE to come and film me for 2 hours at the University of East London this Wednesday eveing at 6:30 ish.
I might not be as famous as WR or Annie or Ian Crane but if you want 9/11 presentation footage on the net for free thats where I`ll be.

Just an offer.

C.

[RespectfullyMyPointIs]

This is my youtube response to the discussion in this thread and that mentioned below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH5nUEr91c0

iniated from this thread.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=51181&highlight=#511 81

Broadcast privacy is a point of principle, that applies to many.
In general
If YOU are going to broadcast doing something that may compromise their quality of life you need the court defence of public interest in your favour.
A court and jury is the proper forum to make a final impartial decision.
It’s a principle, some people campaigning for 911truth may have something to loose.
The argument for a blanket right to film and broadcast anyone in a public setting, is a perversion of the civil liberties debate.
If, filming, broadcasting and therefore identifying floor speakers without the permission is the norm ....who and what could be the back agenda.
Why don’t we all just reveal our names…identify our jobs? ...ultimately compromise our familys?
Are you close to being exactly what we are trying to defeat,
Encourage people to dissent but don’t make their sacrifice for them .
By default do what you can to protect them however mild you think the impact.
..... don’t promote a fascist regime!!

[scubadiver]

RMPI,

you have put in words what I have been thinking for a short time and I will give this the utmost consideration when I send out further details for my talk.

I think this message has to be considered by all.

[GodSaveTheTeam]

Respectfully...

To all those in favour of indiscriminate filming of political events... I haven't once said that I am in favour of "indiscriminate filming". You are arguing against that as a principle. I have said from the start that people have a choice not to be filmed if they wish. I have said that I will be in touch with the film crew and ask them to remove you or anyone else who wishes to be removed from the film. You will first have to identify who you are for this to be in anyway possible. Which will ironically compromise your as yet undisclosed actual identity. No one at our event, INCLUDING YOU, expressed a wish to be removed from our film which was clearly being recorded, even if they were filmed at all. this is a reply to God Save The Team (… GSTT I do enjoy that joke of irony on your avitar. It leaves off the original second half of the Sex Pistols couplet “God Save the Queen…. and The Fascist regime…" what a great album that was, genuinely, haha )

More seriously broadcast privacy is a point of principle, that applies to many.
In general
If YOU are going to broadcast ME doing something that I feel may compromise my quality of life (NOTE its not your opinion of how I should feel that matters) then you’d better have the court defence of public interest in your favour.
To use me as an example:-
In your opinion you don’t think I will be affected by being on youtube making floor points at a 911 truth meeting, I didn't say you wouldn't be effected...I have simply said that I doubt the screening of a film that may or may not include you on a site which may generate (given other examples I have used) 500 views worldwide, is any more of a threat than actually turning up to an event of this kind whether it is filmed or not...
Your making a judgement call on my life, my work, my career and calling into question my knowledge of that......To use you as an example....If you were so concerned about having yourself featured on a film which may "compromise your quality of life"

1: Why didn't you leave as soon as you noticed the quite clearly 'in use' cameras?

2: Why did you draw attention to yourself at a live, recorded event by asking a question?

3: Having asked the question and therefore risking being recorded why didn't you ask us to remove you from the eventual footage to be used face to face?

4: Why given the 'face to face' chance to ask us to edit you out did you wait six days to raise your concerns?

It would be obvious that it may be used in a larger context in the future, Ie Youtube, given the fact that the event had a large press and radio promotion.

5: If you were/are risking so much why did you attend a potentially "dangerous" event of this kind at all, knowing as you admit yourself, the dangers of being filmed surreptitiously?

I still stand by my point that being put up on you tube poses no more of a threat than actually attending the meeting in the first place. Regardless of if it was filmed or not.

Do the BBC,given your insider knowledge, ask the permission of football fans when broadcasting live matches? Given the history of "the soccer fan" throughout the years and as we now see in Italy, there is just as much potential "life compromise" and a far worse stigma attached to being identified in the stands.Do the BBC have to ask the permission of each and every attendee, which is what you are asking us to do


If you force that,......we aren't forcing anything or anyone to do anything. People turned up voluntarily, people stayed voluntarily once they had seen the cameras, no one including you or your companions expressed a wish not to be included in the (by your allegation) numerous photos that were being taken... a court and jury is the proper forum to make an impartial decision......this would seem like an underhanded threat..

I was surprised that given the political sensitivity of the meeting the Liverpool crowd were constantly being photographed.... As I have stated over and over I was not involved in the actual use of the cameras involved so I cannot confirm that they were used in the way you say they were. I've seen about four pictures, the ones included on this site.None of which identify anyone in particular. These were of course photos that have been shown on one of the pages here. Who knows how many may have been taken surreptitiously, by those that who may have been there to compromise your life in some way

For me it’s just the principle, some people may have something to loose, it’s not 911truthfilmers and broadcasters to loose it for them.. ...again no one expressed a wish not to be included at the actual event, not even you..

Like every one else, I know I can expect to be filmed by security forces (I have been many times, see above video)in your video you make your point that broadcasting people without their knowledge is dangerous and then you go on to show a street scene of at least 50 people, did you ask each and every persons permission to film them and broadcast them?Have any of their lives been compromised yet? they are not usually interested in me or the points I make, I’m insignificant to them so I won’t be arrested or questioned.

What makes me uncomfortable as a general principle, is that you are in effect forcing me and anyone who makes a point from the floor to broadcast to a wider public arena....again no one is forcing anyone to do anything, we would have welcomed any wishes of film exclusion, again no one expressed any. An arena viewable by potential employers, whoever etc. That is invasion of anyone’s right to separate private interest and a public life. "Potential employers, whoever", may have been in the audience.

I don’t expect to be broadcast in a specific identifying role without being asked permission. your specific identifying role was as "a questioning human being at a film screening and discussion"

Why? because that’s the rules I had to work to when I made programmes and I believe they protect the individual from compromise...did you ever have to cut someone out of a film that had not expressed a wish to be cut out of it? this is what you are asking us to think about
Let me say again, I don’t care if you know who I am or how many personal details I’ve had to divulge...you have not "had to" divulge anything, your decision to tell us anything about yourself was yours and yours alone,I haven't asked you once to reveal any personal details about yourself. to make this point.
It’s just a point of general principle. Others have more to loose than me.no one else again, expressed a wish to be cut out of a film they may not even be in.

I could not disagree more with your civil liberties argument (see other thread).
I consider the argument you’ve made for a blanket right to film and broadcast anyone in a public setting,you are totally misquoting me.I did not argue once for a blanket right to film and broadcast anyone in a public setting.I will totally stand by yours and my rights as citizens to film anything or anyone where it isn't illegal to do so. I will totally stand by anyones right to ask not to be included in the eventual broadcast.That is the fundamental nature of democracy. I have a right to do something. If you are compromised by it you have a right to object. No one did

...a total perversion of the civil liberties debate,in your opinion. In mine you've got it back to front a divisive mendacious..I haven't lied about anything, argument to your own ends

....In your version of civil liberties we are not even allowed to broadcast a film which may or may not disclose anyones identity for fear that it will.In your version we cannot in the future film or broadcast anyone at all unless we have each and everyones permission in the audience to do so. Now, what if one person says "no" does that mean that we can't film at all? No, it does not! They themselves must request not to be included either before or during or after the film is either recorded or broadcasted. If their lives are compromised in anyway at any time as a direct result of the recording or broadcasting and can be proven as such,then there are legal proceedings which they can follow. That is also the nature of democracy....In your version of civil liberties, we are in danger of compromising peoples lives in exactly the same way if we don't first ...

1 : Search everyone in the audience for surreptitious recording devices.

2: Get a full list of everyone who is thinking of attending just in case there is someone in the audience who could compromise their lives in as a result of merely seeing them there, then ask them to swear on oath that they will not reveal the identities of any present to anyone...("potential employer,whoever")

3: Do background checks on people just in case they aren't who they say they are, in case they are actually there to compromise the life of someone in particular....need I go on?

Whose version of events is more restrictive of civil liberties?

1:Filming and broadcasting an event where people turned up voluntarily and none of which expressed a desire to be cut out of the film.If someone,however improbable, hasn't noticed that they were filmed and later by seeing they are included feel that they may have their lives compromised they can contact us. If they do have their lives compromised they have the legal action they can take to have themselves removed and get compensation.

or

2:Get each and every persons permission before filming the event, which would include liasing individually with each one for actual written permission which would involve all sorts of legal red tape. Obtain the identities of everyone that is going to be there beforehand,check their identities.Search them before entry, get them to sign written statements that they wont reveal the identities of those they may know... it goes on and on....

If, filming the crowd with out consent and broadcasting points from the floor without the permission of the speakers is the accepted norm of a political group, you have to ask who and what is the agenda one would have to ask what is your agenda by

1: Suggesting we are putting people in danger by filming a public event which would also extend to putting them in danger by them attending one.

2 : Refusing to accept that no one apart from you has raised this issue and go on to still suggest that we are compromising the lives of other people.

3 : Bring in all kinds of legal technicalities which would suggest your own intentions.

4 : Wait six days to express this info/point instead of face to face at the event.

5 : Do it on a public forum were people may now be actually scared that attended instead of contacting us privately.

6 : Start off this debate by saying you may or may not be here to sabotage the movement.

7 : Misquote me and twist words to suit your own argument

8 : Voluntarily reveal things about yourself and then say you have had to do so

9 : Make all your accusations without having actually seen the film which hasn't even been posted anywhere as far as I'm aware

10 : Threaten to warn others not to attend future events

11 : Latch on to a minor part of Shaylers talk and continually use that snippet to repeatedly question his authenticity

and how is that group considering the rights of its members over its cause. we are not responsible for anyones individual rights.They are. As discussed over and over we have a right to film and broadcast, you have a right to object to being included. We would defend peoples rights to do this. But we first have to know that someone feels as though their life maybe compromised.Or whatever concern they have.How are we supposed to know without being told?Without being told we would have to consider every single individuals individual rights which would mean finding out the needs of every individual there, and then reading every law ever written Is it helping an inclusive debate[size=18are you excluding those who didn't manage to attend from seeing the event[/size] or just helping identify contributors to the debate. ...if they don't ensure they aren't included they run the risk of being identified. Just as they do by turning up to the event. Filmed or not. It is their responsibilty to ensure this, no one elses,whether they see it before or after it is broadcast.

If a newspaper reports “someone from the floor said da de da” that is one scenario. Unless the speaker has self-announced their name the reporter really has to ask that speaker there name to attribute their quote in the article.
BUT
Publish a video on youtube, with a voice and face. Its just like having your name on it I disagree, if you are going to get this technical then first you would have to take in to consideration the clarity of the individuals exposure on the film.Does your rule apply to a short range, mid range or long range shot?.What if we pixelate them out, their voices can be tracked,dub out there voices as well?do we include them at all,do we just do a reconstruction of the event with actors instead,shall we just all lie down and die now No-one explicitly or implicitlyby turning up to an event of this nature they imply that they are comfortable with it's subject matter.Having a camera in the room and using it, implicitly implies they will be filmed which implies it could be used further surely asked for permission and the niave floor speaker may not realise it has even happened ...especially if they were filmed in secret

Personally speaking, after this discussion, suppose a friend asks me “do you think I should go to the 911truth meeting? I’m just curious to learn more, but I’m worried because I’m employed by a company that tries not to have political association.” 1 ; if an employer dismisses someone for merely going to a public event, there are legal steps they can take, 2 ; if someone is fearful for this very reason and doesn't go to a public event in their own time what kind of a democracy are we living in?Can I also ask is an employer of this kind worth working for?Also merely attending an event of this kind does not align you specifically with its political material. You are merely there as an observer which is legal.
I must answer honestly “if you think that publicity in that context will affect your job then don’t attend such a meeting, unless you are specifically prepared to approach every camera crew and photographer and get a written assurance they won’t broadcast you on the internet.”First of all our 9/11truth meetings are not filmed. Our meetings are not the same as our events. Not in merseyside anyway. At our meetings we plan our events. Perhaps they could come to a meeting instead. But warn them that someone may film them without us knowing or might compromise their lives just by being there. In terms of the question being asked about 'an event', I would indeed hope that you would use your warning. I would also hope you warn them that there maybe someone in the audience that may compromise them enough to effect their jobs,lives etc, and until police state laws come in, whereby organisers of any event would have to search people before entry and obtain a list of each and every attendees identity just incase someone in the audience films them in secret or identifies them in other ways,tell them without these measures, they run the risk.

I think our (GSTT and myself) discussions in the other thread stand up to others scrutiny.
But let me quote your previous post
” I'm not sure the scenario of swingers is an appropriate comparison. Afterall you were only at a film screening. Not engaged in the same kind of compromising position. If your presence was spotted sayyou miss out some words here so you are misquoting me without my permission and word got round, what's wrong with saying you were just politically curious? Or asked to go with a friend?It's not like they've got a picture of you naked.”

This is another example statement where you superimpose your superior judgement and belief system onto another person. by saying this you are actually doing the very thing you accuse me of. Superimposing your interpretation onto my words and assuming why and how they are written. It's just your opinion Your comment is “Afterall you were only at a film screening. Not engaged in the same kind of compromising position”
Maybe not from your reference point, in the circumstances you live, the job you have, the social circle you have, in your view, perhaps not,…………do you seriously believe that attending a film screening is the same as going to a swingers club if you are photographed at each?
Sadly you make it quite obvious the opinion I have about my how compromised I am is subordinate to your opinion of how compromised my position is I haven't once said that, your are presuming…..yet its me that has to live my life.
It’s a point of general principle that applies to every person who attends a meeting and puts questions from the floor.given your argument anyone on any visual broadcast runs the risk of having their lives effected in some way by anyone who sees it. For whatever reason. Indeed would the mere act of obtaining someones permission safeguard them against someone deciding to effect their lives?No it would not.

GSTT Why don’t you post under your real name…tell us your job? Point us to your family? this is totally irrelevant.I have not once said that we should identify people if they don't want to be.Besides I will probably,almost certainly be on the film.No one on the film apart from those who identified themselves, will have their names,jobs etc exposed by us or as a result of merely being on it.To ask me to do this is a step further than possibly being on a film and maybe having your life compromised as a result in some remotely possible way.My personal details are not relevant to the debate. Nor is the fact that I have not included them.

I think your dangerously close to being exactly what your trying to defeat, you are dangerously close to being what we are trying to defeat.You seem to be trying to worry organisers of events into wondering if they should be filmed.Which may prevent other potential organiser from holding events for fear of accidentally filming someone that might take legal action,or having someone else film it secretly which may still mean they as the organisers are liable readers can draw their own conclusions from all of my previous posts and this current discussion.

Your argument is, those that are unhappy in the crowd can leave and those that are uncomfortable with making points for broadcast are best not to make them?no, that may be advisable to those who are worried about being compromised whether the event is filmed or not. I have said from the start that those that do not want to end up in a film must express their concerns

What a great way to pursue knowledge, its 911truth that looses out by intimidating those who have contributions of evidence from coming forward. they are more likely to be in danger if they do not come forward and get themselves and their evidence on the record

Its really not hard to do, as my cut and shove from Tiananmen Square above shows……………………in this video you show a street scene as already discussed, also China has a totally different political climate. It is highly irresponsible and possibly a scare-tactic to compare the two. How can you show us an example of shutting down a camera in China which is an example of living in a less than democratic society, and then say we should all do the same? Do you want us to end up living in the same kind of situation where we must all be in fear?
For his safety its my choice to blur his face. He is speaking in Tiananmen Square,again totally different and comparing being briefly filmed (maybe) in The Casa in Liverpool England where political debates are held all the time with Tianamen Square where people have been killed simply for being there is ridiculous,tasteless and belittles the memory of those that died,as you know where in 1989 many were imprisoned for being seen to be there,given this argument they will be killed if they are filmed or not, , the true death toll (hundreds to thousands) will never be known and doubtless a few were just compromised and lost jobs. Encourage people to dissent but don’t make their sacrifice for them again you are comparing two completely different countries, governments,levels of risks to personal safety, scenarios,
By default do what you can to protect them however mild, you think the impact. by this argument it would be safer not to hold the event at all

God save the team..... so don’t promote a fascist regimeI'm not.You are. You're promoting a regime where people are in fear of being filmed or filming people. You are promoting a regime where we cannot broadcast a film that may or may not include people that expressed no desire to be cut out of it. You are promoting a regime that would require a system of identification similar to that we see being constructed. When people would have to look at list of attendees before attending an event for fear of being discriminated against for attending it.You are promoting a kind of censorship with hindsight.You are promoting a regime which implies that it's somehow dangerous to have opinions and express them in public...

I'm promoting political,free thinking debate,I'm promoting the right for people to document something legally, I promote peoples right to voice their objection to that and to do what is necessary to not be included. I'm promoting the idea that people are responsible for their own anonimity so people can do all of the above without having to go through all kinds of legal complications and police state type measures.

A climate of fear and censorship versus a climate of freedom and risk?

That is the ultimate paradox of our time.

Will we soon have to pixel out our speakers faces for the same fears? Will we soon be able to get any one to attend at all just in case someone posts them up after filming them in secret?Will we soon have to search people before they enter?....will we soon be able to hold events at all...?

Lets remember that you came here looking for attention by your own admission(albeit to talk about how you don't want unnecessary attention!) Your original post was full of all sorts of riddles and accusations against our guests and suggestions that you have insider knowledge and we should all be in fear if we are seen on an internet video site in a free country.You then compare Liverpool with communist China. These would all sound like scare tactics.

I have said every step of the way that we will remove your identity or anyone elses should they request it.Again you will paradoxically have to reveal your identity for this to happen.

In the end I have not once said that I believe that people should have their identities given against their wishes. Not once have I suggested that they should be included in a film if they don't want to be.Yet you accuse me of promoting a fascist regime. You have also assumed you know the nature of my avatar. You clearly don't.

You have based your entire argument on a video you haven't even seen. You have used often innapropriate comparisons. You have accused me of promoting a fascist regime.You have said yourself that you have been attacked in the past without actually being filmed.

We should not stop filming our events. People may have to be warned beforehand before they enter that they may be filmed.From that point on it is their own responsibilty.Once you start pixelating people out of films of events you attach a climate of fear to the event itself.

People should remember that it is perfectly legal to attend an event of this kind and publicly question events like 9/11 without fear of recrimination.It is clear that there is a risk in affiliating yourself with this movement. Whether filmed or not. The same risk remains either way.

We should all remember what is at stake.Do we want freedom which involves risk and personal responsibility or do we want censorship,restriction and fear of having an opinion,asking a question and attending an event for fear of being discriminated against?

Do we hide for having views that may go against the grain or do we stand up in the face of adversity?

Without standing up for what we believe in can we expect to get anywhere as a movement?

[RespectfullyMyPointIs]

A query are posts in bold, big fonts an indication that bold posters are more worthy of being read? Bold posts certainly dominate the screen everyone must start using them.

[GodSaveTheTeam]

The fact is you have clearly used people in a broadcast without their permission. You are now infact the only person in this whole debate who has done so.By doing so you have attached them to the politically sensitive matter in a country where they may actually be killed for it. Well done.You have managed to do exactly what you accused us of doing.

You have already elevated your own words above others by inserting capitals in between my post.At least I'm not shouting.

My avatar references the front of the sex pistols album but at this point you don't know why.You are almost correct.

Respectfully of course.

[RespectfullyMyPointIs]

Cheney was excellent at Cherry Picking details and fact presentation to an agenda without presenting the full context.

watch the video make your own judgement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH5nUEr91c0
read my previous and posts above re crowd, individual inclusion and ultimate compromise

Challenge everyone and everything and the only thing left standing will be the truth and those who worked arduously for it.

[GodSaveTheTeam]

Now you are associating me with Dick Cheney? boy, you are getting desperate.

The fact remains that you have...

1 : Started a debate about not posting peoples faces on you tube against their wishes or without their knowledge.

2 : Accused someone who agrees with that but makes a few points to consider because,I believe in them and as you admit, you wanted attention.

3 : Questioned the integrity of a group,their event and their event's guests over and over on the premise that they may have used peoples images in a film that not only hasn't been posted but that you haven't seen.

4 : Used a street scene featuring people in a very politically dangerous country on you tube without their permission and thereby attaching them to the sensitive material here that you said may put others at risk.

That's the truth and you know it.

If I'm Dick Cheney, you must be George W given point four, talk about a total and utter gaffe.

Your intentions may have back fired, whatever they were.

[scubadiver]

I respectfully think that this debate is getting out of hand. Remember, the majority of people have never even heard of WR so they will attend the events on this tour with a huge amount of caution.

Although they may be intrigued by what WR has to say, I think their feelings for privacy need to be respected (as ironic as it may sound!!!)

IMHO of course!

[RespectfullyMyPointIs]

SCUBADIVER thanks for your input, not sure I agree that the debates out of hand.
To me and others its a principle worth discussing.

By default.
Don't do agents work for them and at a lesser level don't socially compromise people's livelyhoods unnecessarily by filming them in potentiall compromising situations.

[scubadiver]

[GodSaveTheTeam]

I'm afraid the fact remains that you have used people's images on youtube without their permission.

Now, even if they are only slightly now attached to the political issues, what about all the other ways that you yourself may have compromised those whose permission you did not ask for?

There maybe some in that crowd of people that are with their 'mistresses' or not at work and pulling a sickee, or more politically - in that country illegally, or refugees from some tyrannical regime who found out that they attended a political event from an agent that had eyeballed them.

Well, thanks to your video they may be spotted and traced.

You can't have it both ways I'm afraid.You can't say "you can't use people's images on youtube without their permission...unless your me trying to prove a point "

You could infact say that just filming people shopping or just on the street has more compromising risk factors attached to it than being at a public meeting. At least the people at the event know they are being filmed. It is even more unlikely that everyone on the street knows you are filming them.

The people at the event are in the majority going to be there for a film screening and a discussion as advertised. Think about all the ways you could compromise people in a street? You do not have to be engaged in a political activity for your identity on you tube to compromise your life. There are infact as shown above,infinitely more possibilities as to why they are out on that street with the people they are with etc etc etc therefore infinitely more ways in which you could compromise their lives...

Of course you cannot be expected to account for all those possibilities. The people who are out on that street in potentially compromising situations are running their own risk by doing so. You are still allowed to film them and broadcast them without their permission as you yourself have done.

By your own argument you should have asked each person's permission before you put them on youtube.You didn't do that.Errr...
By your own argument you have put them at risk...ooops.

In the end attending an event in itself is just as dangerous as being filmed at one. What about the huge article we got in The Echo, which featured the headline "9/11 was an inside job".

How many more people could have read this potentially massively offensive headline than seeing the event on you tube?I would say ten to one easy.Papers are still more widely available than the internet. The article also featured the venue,date and time of the event.

Now what is to stop any number of people using that info to come along and see just who attends from a stealthy, concealed position? Does it mean that those who attend are being compromised by the article in the paper? Do we say we can't advertise the event until we get the permission of those who might attend?

In the end no one is disagreeing that people who don't want their identities disclosing should be forced to have them disclosed. Again, I have already said that we will remove anyones identities from the film if they express this wish. No one did on the night or has since. Not even you.

What you are asking us to do is censor ourselves in the event that someones life may be compromised even though no one has expressed that concern. Yet you ignore this by posting a street scene full of people whose lives you have no idea about.

What you are saying is that we cannot do something which is legal for fear of a consequence. This is the absolute epitome of the big brother state.... "Don't eat chicken, you might get bird flu" or "Don't fly, your plane might get hijacked" or "Don't express an opinion in public, you might get discriminated against" "Don't attend a political event, there might be someone there who might compromise your lifestyle" "Don't hold that event, 9/11 might not have been an inside job" on and on it goes.

We upheld all of our rights by holding the event, getting people to it, filming a public event, we would be upholding our rights to broadcast it. All you have done is try to stop us from doing that and yet you have done that very thing yourself.

I defy anyone to make sense of your actions and not question your integrity on this site.

[scubadiver]

[RespectfullyMyPointIs]

Its a good plan Scuba, it also lets people make points who are shy on cam. I think thats an excellent route and if you really need to film the crowd just announce at the beginning "we are filming, it is likely it may be broadcast". Also it does not inhibit anyone from speaking if they are comfortable with being broadcast..

From the OFCOM website Appendix 3 - European Convention on Human Rights
Extracts from the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 8
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
Article 10
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
My Note:- you do have the right to express political opinions, this does not give others the right to broadcast it even if you are speaking at a public meeting

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

With reference to the internet it needs a test case, that will happen.

A known tactic of Governmental countersubversion is to set-up reactionary organisations that take public role in attacking the line your Government promotes then the reactionaries are guided into a controllable but sadly infiltrated political campaign.

[scubadiver]

MI5 - It is a shame after so few messages you won't stay on board.

GSTT - Why ask people for their permission to be filmed when the simple solution is not to have video cameras in the first place. People know the events exists, been to it, have talked about it and told other people and their privacy hasn't been compromised.

What genuine, needful purpose does filming an event serve? Saves a whole load of hassle if you ask me.

[GodSaveTheTeam]

I can't believe what I am witnessing here...

In my opinion you are a highly questionable individual who I believe may be trying to sabotage this movement in some way.

Let's go back over your actions...

You post the same riddle filled post on two threads which were started by the Merseytruth team to, in your own admission, get attention.

In that post entitled "Criticising Shayler", you do so extensively by going on and on about his Occult and NPT contribution to that event. This is the first highly dubious behaviour you display...

Why?because Shayler, "Shill" or not, did not go on and on as you suggest about those aspects on the night.He mentioned it briefly in passing.

In that post you also

Joke about selling out to MI5,

Say

I’ve been in World Trade Centre,
I’ve been one of 6 people in a room with Jimmy Carter,
I got to the Kensington Isreali Embassy bomb within twenty minutes before the police cordon.
I spent over two hours in a room with one other person and Henry Kissinger,
I’ve met Gordon Brown in a one on one situation
I’ve been deported from a country.
I've been apprehended with a six inch knife at airport security (not the same country).
I was at Canary Wharf a few days before the bomb went off

Later on you say you were forced to give these details away.You were not.

In other posts

You discredit Roderiguez's eyewitness evidence.
You say you've raised Parliamentary debate
You say on 9/12/01 you lead a team of 26 people researching who Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were(with the above paragraph of credentials, how you didn't know already is highly questionable)

You say you've gotten anti Iraq war media material to 10's and thousands of people.
You say that as a result of the above you have been accosted by ex-Iraq military in public.
You say you've been attacked by Liverpool Police for as yet unknown reasons, but it wasn't related to activism.
You say in the same unrelated way that you've been detained in 5 countires.
You say you've worked at the BBC for 5 years,Reuters 2 years,produced and presented shows on LBC five nights a week to 65,000 people plus each night.
You say you were fired from Talk Sport for being reactionary.

Again you will later say you were forced to give out these "facts" about yourself. You were not.

You say you lost US NPR radio play for your music since your anti war stuff went up on your web site.
Suggest you have been interviewed by the US media.
Say you've got a massive ego.
Say you probably have mental health issues.

Whilst giving all this so called info out freely about yourself, you...

Suggest I may be an agent who has mind controlled you into revealing all these things about yourself.
Say being filmed asking a question at a public film screening and discussion is like being photographed at a swingers club.
Suggest you stumbled into some kind of criminal underworld.
Suggest you lost a girlfriend as a result.

Whilst giving all this extra info freely, which you will later say was forced from you....you

Say having your face on you tube without your permission is like giving out one's full identity and therefore may compromise your life.
Link from here a video which you have posted on you tube which includes peoples faces that you did not ask permission for.
Suggest that that doesn't matter because the people you featured were not at our Merseytruth gig therefore their lives cannot be compromised even though they are in communist China.
Compare the Casa, a well known political debate setting in the heart of Liverpool city centre with.......Tiananmen Square.
Underhandedly threaten the filmakers of the Merseyside truth event with legal action.
Suggest the film makers overtly filmed the audience for suspicious reasons.
Ask us to pixelate the faces of the audience from a film that you have not even seen.
Say you will discourage people from attending further 9/11 truth events.
Ask me for my personal details,...name, job, family details.
You also fail to understand that I have agreed with your point about others right to privacy and suggest that because I'm ignoring your point I have some kind of agenda.
Fail to understand that I haven't even seen the film,didn't make it and have no access to it to comply with your wishes personally.
Accuse me of being like our enemies because I wont comply with your wishes.
Accuse me of promoting a fascist regime.
Compare me with Dick Ceney.

You fail to even acknowledge that you are the only person in this entire debate that has posted peoples identity without permission on you tube.
You fail to concede that this is just as potentially compromising to their individual lives if not more, even though this has been the entire basis of your whole argument.
You fail to even consider that asking us to cut people out of a film when no one asked us to is giving in to fear and playing into the hands of big brother.
Fail to concede that you were attacked EVEN THOUGH you were not filmed or broadcast in the past.
Fail to understand that in order to ensure no one is broadcast on you tube after attending a 9/11 truth gig would require extensive police state measures.

Then...you change your name to MI5....?
Then you tell us that you will never again go to a 9/11 truth event.
Then you suggest that RMPI is a different person.
Then you suggest that you are leaving this site.

After all this staggeringly suspicious behaviour it turns out that one of our event organisers is now convinced that not asking the audiences permission at all and not even having video cameras present at events is the right thing to do.

BIG BROTHER 1
TRUTH MOVEMENT 0.

[LetsBustShills]

This psting is really werd its tryin to smear another poster for his view wots going on

[Emmanuel]

Its true, my first reaction to shall we go and see W Rodriguez, was oh you can just watch a talk on google video.....
However, If it his livlihood now then it shouldnt be recorded too.
I did go the other night and I must admit I was a bit miffed with the cameras panning over the audience. The cameraperson whould have respected the audience a bit more. Friends that I were with, were even more annoyed than me. By invading peoples privacy will also affect numbers going to these events in future.
Also as said in my other post
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=6747
the lighting limited the intimacy of the presentation, made the screen harder to see and was a bit harsh too.
If this is the way its going to be and this is big bruvva time, maybe it's time we invest in some v for vendetta style masks?

[Finningham]

By filming you are making something that could benefit history. It may sound dramatic but the truth is it will be a record of our time.